Global Warming Myth

humanness do world(prenominal) warming does not exist. Evidence suggests that hundred levels ar not abnormally high and that the shabu caps argon not break up away. in that respect are legion(predicate) reputable scientists who question this theory we label global warming. Others would say it is a way for the regimen to control much and more of our daily lives and to move along an agenda that benefits certain groups and individuals. objet dart made global warming is a theory being preached to us as gospel and being taught as fact already proven.However in that respect are a large number of people in the scientific community who would disagree. One of the most prominent opponents of man made global warming was Dr. Frederick Seitz. Dr. Seitz is a physicist who served as the president of the field of study Academy of attainment during the 1960s and of Rockefeller University from 1968 to 1978. In 1973 he received the National Medal of comprehension. (Oriana Zill de Gr anados, PBS. org, April 24, 2007, p1. ) Dr. Seitz cognize as the Grandaddy of global warming skeptics (Buisness week, June 24. was an apponent of climate replace saying that the science behind global warming was standardizedwise inconclusive and certainly didnt warrant imposing mandatory limits on the common landhouse-gas emissions ( kisser Hertsgaard, Vanity Fair. com, While majuscule Slept, May 2006, p3. ). Dr. Seitz believed science was being misrepresented and wrote an op-ed page to The Wall channel Journal thrashing the integrity of a 1995 I. P. C. C. and that global warming and ozone depletion were enlarged threats devised by environmentalists and unscrupulous scientists pushing a political agenda. Mark Hertsgaard, Vanity Fair. com, While Washington Slept, May 2006, p3) He also wrote that This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, special and authorize by an internati onal body of experts. These scientists commence laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to beit is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.In my more than 60 historic period as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review dish than the events that led to this IPCC report. (Dr. Frederick Seitz, Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996) Dr. Seitz was also a main region to and wrote the forward for the Oregon Petition. The Oregon Petition states We urge the United States goernment to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals.The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would handicap the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and dama ge the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the predictable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths climate. Moreover, thither is lusty scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. org) This petition has garnered over 31,000 signatures of scientists who feel that man made climate change is not definitive. Almost 10,000 of those who signed the petition have PhDs. This petition shows that there are a large number of scientists who question man made global warming exists, unlike the Washington Post writer who wrote more or less scientists who are skeptical just about global warming but these few- about 2% of climate researchers- could hold their ann ual meeting in a phone booth, if there are any left. (Larry Bell, Forbes, That Global Warming Consensus, July 17, 2012 p. 1) These scientists are not just forming an opinion on the subject there is attach evidence to back up their claims a sackst climate change. We hear about the ice caps warming and watch on television polar bears stranded on floating pieces of ice that have broken off and drifting away. National Public Radio published a story on its website claiming ten dollar bill years past, a piece of ice the size of Rhode Island disintegrated and melted in the waters off south-polara.Two other massive ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula had suffered similar fates a few years before. (Richard Harris, NPR. org, Humans Role In Antarctic Ice Melt is Unclear, August 22, 2012) This leads to a conclusion that Antarctica is melting away when just the opposite is happening. According to (James Taylor, Antarctic Ice Sets other Record, Forbes, folk 19, 2012) Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began beat the ice 33 years ago and the ice has been above the 33 year average throughout 2012.Snow and ice are steadily change magnitude and growing faster than it is melting. Meteorologist Anthony Watts shows us new information from ICESAT(Ice, Cloud, and Land SATellite) which is NASAs top satellite for observing and measuring the earths ice and masses. During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass impairment from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2. 5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change.The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS microwave radar altimetry. (Wattsupwiththat. com, Anthony Watts, ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses, September 10, 2012) So ice and snow are growing in Antarctica and a new study by NASA suggests that the continent once was green and practiced of vegitation. The frozen continent of Antarctica which some believe is melting away cod to global warming once was green and suitable for vegitation. The peak of Antarcticas green perioid was between 16. 4 and 15. 7 million years ago during the Micene geological era. (NASA. gov, June 17, 2012, p. 2) During this time carbon levels, which is the main contributor to greenhouse gasses and global warming were 400 to 600 parts per million(ppm) (NASA. gov, June 17, 2012,p. 2) Carbon levels now are at 393ppm, the highest they have been in the past several million years. (NASA. gov, June 17, 2012, p. ) This shows our carbon levels today are almost the level they were millions of years ago when Antarctica was green and yet today snow and ice are building in the region. If carbon levels are almost the same as they were millions of years ago than who was creating them? We are told over and over again we cause global warming from our cars to refriderators to hairspray. The question needfully to be answered who was driving in Antarctica 16 million years ago? The answer is nobody. Global warming is being used as a tool generate fortunes for the government and take our liberty away.